Volumetric Flank Wear Characterization for Titanium Milling Insert Tools

Burger, Uli; Kuttolamadom, Matthew; Bryan, April; Mears, Laine

doi:10.1115/msec2009-84256

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One such approach particularly suitable for milling inserts having sharp profile features is outlined below. This is a [7]. The volumetric wear assessment methodology essentially involves capturing point cloud data of the cutting region of the tool insert by a 3D optical surface profiler.…”

Section: Volumetric Tool Wear (Vtw): Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is to be noted that such deficiencies in describing the tool condition might not be very significant for materials having high machinability such as aluminum and its alloys, which usually exhibit a "fairly linear" tool deterioration response with cutting time. However, for materials generally classified as "difficult-tomachine," such as titanium and its alloys, standard tool life models eventually break down [6][7][8][9][10], and these inadequacies are very pronounced.…”

Section: Tool Wear Characterization Issues-a Brief Qualitative Assessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Volumetric Assessment of Tool Wear in Machining Inserts With Complex Geometries—Part 1: Need, Methodology, and Standardization

Kuttolamadom¹,

Mears²

2012

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this paper are to qualitatively assess the inadequacies of the current manner of tool wear quantification and consequently to suggest/develop a more comprehensive approach for machining tool wear characterization. Traditional parameters used for tool wear representation such as flank and crater wear are no longer self-sufficient to satisfactorily represent the advanced wear status of more recent cutting tools with complex geometric profiles. These complexities in tool geometries are all the more pronounced when catered to difficult-to-machine materials such as titanium and its alloys. Hence, alternatives to traditional tool wear assessment parameters are briefly explored and a suitable one is selected, that will help understand the very nature of the evolving wear profile itself fi'om a three dimensional standpoint. The assessment methodology is further developed and standardized and suggestions for future use and deployment are provided. The measurement system is evaluated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) gauge repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) study as well. In Part 2 of this paper, this method is deployed for assessing tool wear in machining TÍ-6AI-4 V and concepts such as the M-ratio and its derivatives are developed to quantify the efficiency of the cutting tool during each pass.

show abstract

Section: Volumetric Tool Wear (Vtw): Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tool Wear Characterization Issues-a Brief Qualitative Assessmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Volumetric Assessment of Tool Wear in Machining Inserts With Complex Geometries—Part 1: Need, Methodology, and Standardization

Kuttolamadom¹,

Mears²

2012

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such inconsistencies can be verified quantita tively as well. Note that these inconsistencies are all the more pro nounced when machining traditionally "difficult-to-machine," materials such as Ti-6A1-4V, when standard tool life models break down [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 is just one among many that are commonly encountered; hence, strictly speaking, none of the traditional tool wear studies can be compared absolutely. Rightly so, machining tool wear has historically been described as "difficult to define without ambiguity" [11], Prior conducted volumetric wear related efforts by contact mechanics [12][13][14][15] and optical assessment [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] have been extended [1,5,9,10,26,27] in which a VTW methodology was developed, evaluated by a gauge R&R, and validated. Further, a comparative analysis [1,9] has substantiated the necessity and advantages of this methodology over prior efforts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of the Volumetric Tool Wear Rate of Carbide Milling Inserts With the Material Removal Rate of Ti–6Al–4V

Kuttolamadom

Mehta

Mears

2015

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to assess the correlation of volumetric tool wear (VTW) and wear rate o f carbide tools on the material removal rate (MRR) of titanium alloys. A pre viously developed methodology for assessing the worn tool material volume is utilized for quantifying the VTW of carbide tools when machining Ti-6Al-4V. To capture the tool response, controlled milling experiments are conducted at suitable corner points of the recommended feed-speed design space, for constant stock material removal volumes. For each case, the tool material volume worn away, as well as the corresponding volumetric wear profile evolution in terms of a set of geometric coefficients, is quantified-these are then related to the MRR. Further, the volumetric wear rate and the M-ratio (volume of stock removed to VTW) which is a measure of the cutting tool efficiency, are related to the MRR-these provide a tool-life based optimal MRR for profitability. This work not only elevates tool wear from a ID to 3D concept, but helps in assessing machining economics from a stock material-removal-ejficiency perspective as well.inadequacies were all the more pronounced in the case of tools catered to machining titanium alloys due to their typical complex geometric profiles involving high positive rake and relief angles. Consequently, a VTW quantification methodology was developed, standardized, and experimentally validated [1], This has potential to offer insights into the mechanics of wear itself from a 3D stand point, which is critical to a holistic understanding of the wear pro cess. Currently, tool wear is best tracked by a set of successive photomicrographs of the flank/rake face, at periodic instances dur ing the cut, which provide no information on how one wear profile led to another. An understanding of such progression/interactions will provide insights into the behavior and response of tool condi tion monitoring (TCM) parameters used for indirectly measuring tool wear, such as forces, vibrations, frequencies, etc., which was noted as a need in the recent ASME state-of-the-art paper on TCM [2], 2 Background 2.1 Qualitative Assessment of Tool Wear Quantifiers. CutCutting tool failure is most commonly quantified as a limiting measure of flank or crater wear or limits of surface finish, cutting force, vibration amplitude, etc. The standard measure of limiting tool life for carbide inserts is usually a uniform average flank depth (VBb) of about 0.3 mm or a localized wear depth (VBBmax) of about 0.6 mm [3], which can vary based on the application. Likewise, wear on the rake face is most commonly characterized by limiting values of crater wear depth (KT) as given by [4] KT = 0.06 + 0.3/where, / is the feed/rev. Note that this criterion was initially coined for single point turning tools with simple geometries. The ISO standards for tool life testing in milling [3] define 16 distinct tool deterioration phenomena for face milling, and 13 APRIL 2015, Vol. 137 / 021021-1

show abstract

“…The constant C is defined as the cutting speed required to obtain a tool life of 1 min. Tool life can be defined as the time required to reach a predetermined flank wear width, FWW [2][3][4], although other wear criteria such as dimension tool life, dimension wear rate (defined as the rate of shortening of the cutting tip in the direction perpendicular to the machined surface taken within the normal wear period) [5], crater wear [6][7][8], and volumetric wear [9][10][11], may also be applied. The Taylor tool life model is deterministic in nature, but uncertainty always exists in practice due to: (1) factors that are unknown or not included in the model (because of the complex nature of the tool wear process); and (2) tool-to-tool performance variation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%